NPR Watch (3/17/17) – Fake News!


Bottom Line: If pressed to put the top 10 principal contributors to a changing climate in a hierarchical list, ordered from most to least influential, and to give a rationale for that list, there’s not a single, solitary scientist on the face of the earth who could do it.


National Public Radio (NPR) is the home of fake news. We’ve been making, and demonstrating, the truth of this claim for far longer than it’s been cool to talk about it.

I was listening to their morning fake news program, called Morning Edition this morning, in which the anchorette, one Rachel Martin was interviewing someone for Bilt magazine, a German publication.

Martin posed a question that went something like this, “Surveys show that most Trump voters think that humans don’t bring about climate change…” I don’t remember the exact wording, but the meaning is the same. The key premise of the question was: “Trump voters think that humans don’t bring about climate change.”

That is, of course, hogwash.

Everyone knows — likely since about the third grade — that absolutely everything, no exceptions, changes the climate. I drove into work this morning. I changed the climate. I just waggled my little finger. I changed the climate. A supernova just happened a trillion light years away. By virtue of the perturbations it made instantly in the gravitation of the universe, it changed the climate here. A volcano just burped somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. It changed the climate. A gecko burped somewhere on the Galapagos Islands. It changed the climate.

The real misperception “out there” is that of the Left, who insist that human activity is the main driver of change in the climate. This is, of course, neither known, nor more importantly, even knowable at this time.

In other words, if pressed to put the top 10 principal contributors to a changing climate in a hierarchical list, ordered from most to least influential, and to give a rationale for that list, there’s not a single, solitary scientist on the face of the earth who could do it.

Not one.

There’s not a single, solitary scientist on the planet who could give you any solid rationale even to include humans in that list. There’s not a single, solitary scientist on the planet who could give you a valid rationale to put humans anywhere in the top 100 most ifluential contributors to climate change. That all is true, simple, scientific fact.

In light of this, the assertion from the Trump Administration that “any dollars spent on climate change are wasted” is a gigantic breath of fresh air — that changes the climate — to hear. Truer words were rarely spoken in America.

NPR’s intent was not to put out a “news story.” NPR was trying to make the point, without coming out and saying it, that Trump voters were, and are, stupid.

But, but, but, I hear you say. NPR was just being careless with their language. They really meant that Trump voters largely disagree with the scientific consensus that humans need to stop using so many fossil fuels, and blah, blah, blah.

Maybe. Maybe NPR was simply being careless with their language, they’re certainly lazy and careless with their thinking, and their research, and their reporting. But why is it then, that every time they could be accused of being careless with their language, it ends up being a slipup that supports the leftist viewpoint? Every time. No exceptions. Nope. That’s not carelessness, that’s intent. Also known as Fake News.

— xPraetorius

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “NPR Watch (3/17/17) – Fake News!

  1. Oh Amen to this! I am SO sick of outlets like NPR, CNN, The Atlantic, etc…coating topics like climate change, budget cuts, healthcare and the like in moral good vs bad terms where anyone with an R in front of their name automatically means backwards, wrong and ignorant.

    The climate is always changing as you say. The big questions as to how much man is responsible and to what extent and if anything even needs to be done have not been answered and probably never will be except through the passage of time when we will all be dead anyway! 😉

    1. Exactly, Tricia! You can always tell which side of any argument has the weakest position: It’s the side that won’t, or can’t, answer the basic questions that must be answered or there’s simply no justification for action of any kind, based on any conclusion.

      In “climate change,” there are at least two basic questions that have never been addressed by the environmental movement: (1) to what extent does human activity change the climate? And its follow-up that I’ve seen only in these pages: (2) What proportion of human activity warms the climate, and what proportion actually cools the climate?

      I’ve seen that second, extremely relevant question posed only in these pages. I’ve even spoken to many prominent media personalities asking them why they don’t pose the question. The answer is always something vague like, “it’s too late in the process,” or “I’m not a climate scientist,” or the like. The point: their response indicates pointedly that the question never even occurred to them. I remain mystified as to why no one has posed the question in a prominent forum.

      The answer to both important questions is simple, though: Unknown, and unknowable. Like, not even close to knowable.

      As I said at top: the side with the weakest argument refuses to answer the basic questions that are absolutely necessary to justify any movement or action.

      For example, the pro-death movement has never answered the questions: “What if you’re wrong? What if “it” is a baby?” Or, “It’s human, and it’s life — all people know that — but you say it’s not ‘a human life?’ Justify that. ”

      No feminist ever answered the basic question that had to be answered, or there was no justification for feminism: “What if men have it worse than women?” Oh, feminists tried to imply that women have things far worse than men, but if you examine the subject a bit, it gets very murky, very, very quickly. I’ve routed many, many feminists who proved by the weakness of their comebacks and arguments that they’ve never even thought about that absolutely fundamental question, even for a moment.

      You can look at all the leftist movements of history and see that their leading thinkers never even address the fundamental questions that must be addressed. Marx never answered (except really weakly) “What about human nature?” And so on and so forth.

      It’s important to note that these are questions that Christianity answers, with extremely succinct, easy to understand, blinding common sense — in, eg, the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, the Lord’s Prayer, and more places.

      Best

      — x

      1. So well said x, could have been a whole new blog post I think! What a great take you have on this with the “unanswered questions” angle. Like you said, most Leftists won’t even consider those questions. Those that do, have to shut it down immediately because truthful answers flip upside their entire world view. And we all know the left is never wrong, right? 😉

        1. Thanks, Tricia! Maybe I’ll adapt it to a new post.

          About the unanswered questions: we on the Conservative side of things have to stop allowing the left to drive the debate. A lot of these pernicious movements can be stopped in their tracks if we simply would dig our heels in and demand that the fundamental questions be answered straight up and convincingly. No evasions or deflections.

          Or, even better, movements like feminism with ostensibly noble motives could be turned to do actual good things — like concentrating on bettering the entire human condition.

          It’s funny, literally all the Conservatives I know — not one exception — have no objection whatsoever to a movement that would advance the health, wealth, power, prosperity, longevity, happiness and general well-being of … women. However, feminism says it’s all about that, but has really been all about tearing down men for a very long time. Any man, or woman for that matter, who supports that is just crazy.

          This is true for all leftist movements. Another example? Black Lives Matter. Yep. They sure do! A lot! However, they don’t matter a hill of beans to the Black Lives Matter movement. And, yet this group purports to speak for all Black Americans.

          Of course, we never demanded that they answer the fundamental questions. Here’s one: The entire direction of American social policy has complied with all the demands of so-called black leaders for more than sixty years. How can you possibly claim that America is a racist country?

          Another one: Today many in your movement insist that things are worse than they’ve ever been in America. Disprove for me the growing conclusion in America that the more than 16 trillion dollars spent on race-based programs, have not only been wasted, but if your premise is correct, have only made things worse. How can we spend time, effort and money to do the right thing, since plainly, we’re not doing it now, and haven’t been doing it for a very long time?

          A good wordsmith would make that a lot more concise, and there are a lot more such questions to direct at BLM, but you get the point. You can do that with every single, solitary leftist movement out there.

          Best,

          — x

          1. So very true and again well said. I think the rank and file of these movements mean well but have no idea of the hard left elements that control them and take advantage of any type of disruption to exploit and further their cause.

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s